While we strive for a lively and vigorous debate of the issues, we do not tolerate name calling, foul language or other inappropriate behavior. Please see our discussion guidelines and terms of use for more information.

While we do our best to moderate comments, we do not screen comments before they are posted. If you see a comment that violates our guidelines, please use the "Report Abuse" link to notify us of the issue.

The Catholic Church and the GOP should learn from one another: their faltering popularity could be reversed by moderating their view and getting back in touch with mainstream American.

The new pope could make a huge impact on the quality of life of millions of poor Catholics on a global basis simply by embracing birth control. The "be fruitful and multiply" mantra has done nothing but perpetuate poverty for the past thousand years.

dalemeyer - Yesterday at 8:22 PM:"The "be fruitful and multiply" mantra has done nothing but perpetuate poverty for the past thousand years."************There is nothing wrong with the "be fruitful and multiply" mantra. The problem occurs when some people refuse to take responsibility and be productive citizens. Kinda like what JFK once said...."ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country."

I don't know what Dale meant exactly, but my guess is that he was talking about Spain and Latin America. There are millions of Catholics there who live in abject poverty largely because they refuse to use birth control and continue to have children they cannot afford to support.

We've largely curbed that phenomenon here, though it did take a generation for it to happen. Even pregnancy rates "in the ghetto" are down significantly thanks to outreach and education programs which have made birth control more prevalent and socially acceptable.

Letter writer J.A. Carlson argues that Senator Ron Johnson should cave on his principles and vote for a Liberal agenda instead of fighting for a Conservative agenda. After all, according to this writer, more of his constituents voted Democratic in the 2012 Presidential election than Republican.

However, this letter writer ignores that more Wisconsin voters voted for Ron Johnson than Russ Feingold. And they voted knowing what he stood for.

Sadly, there are too many who believe that Democrats are in the majority in America. The simple truth is that there are more elected Republicans in Washington than Democrats. There are more elected Republicans at the state level than Democrats. There are more Republican governors than democrats.

Analysis of the voter demographics in the 2012 Presidential election also shows GOP gains among younger voters. President Obama had fewer votes from the 18 to 29 age group from 2008 to 2012. Governor Romney gained votes in this demographic from the 2008 election.

Senator Johnson and his fellow Republicans need to stay true to their core conservative values. This is what America wants and what America needs.

Propagander - Today at 8:49 AM:"Much of this is because conservatives have spent a lot more time and money demonizing the term 'liberal' than liberals have spent demonizing the term 'conservative'."**********Semantics aside it is the left that is far more critical of the right. How often do you hear conservatives criticizing or ridiculing liberals? Which side spends more time criticizing the other? Wouldn't you agree that liberals spend far more time criticizing FOX, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, etc. etc. than the right does criticizing well known liberals, e.g., Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, etc.? How many prominent female conservatives have been attacked with unrelenting criticism, crude and vulgar jokes versus assaults of female liberals from the right? I suggest that if the term liberal is being demonized it is because of the actions of the liberals.

I know in polling when people must choose whether they are conservative or liberal, conservative wins 56-44 in the last poll I saw. Also, when people voluntarily pick between liberal, independent or conservative, "liberal" gets swamped. It's about 20-40-40.

Republicans haven't been able to exploit that apparent advantage very much but I sure don't know how Libs can claim some clear majority, either, when only about 20% of the population voluntarily calls themselves liberal.

BTW, this goes to Ron Johnson's quote: Where does Liberalism end and Socialism begin?

I'm old enough to remember when Liberals worked hard to demonize the term Conservative. But it's Liberals who work hard to rebrand themselves as Progressives. Whatever we call each other, it doesn't change the simple fact that more people lean to the Right than the Left.

And the numbers support it. There are more elected Republicans. Democrats lost votes in 2012 from 2008. Republicans gained. Democrats lost younger voters. Republicans gained.

Taxidea taxus - Today at 11:16 AM:"Sundae, that must be why Romney won in 2012, huh?"*************Had electoral votes been distributed based upon winning Congressional districts...Romney would have won. As you may know there was a proposal that one electoral vote would be given to a candidate for each Congressional district that they won with the 2 remaining votes going to the winner of the statewide vote. Had that proposal been adopted the 10 WI electoral votes would have been evenly split between Romney and Obama. On a national level if that proposal would have been in effect you'd now be calling Romney... Mr. President.

Taxidea taxus - Today at 11:35 AM:"Conservative values is code for "wide stance" encounters in the Minneapolis airport bathroom."***********As opposed to a "narrow stance" in the oval office while reaching for a cigar.

I was recently reminded of Casey Stengel, a frustrated baseball manager, who once looked down the bench in his dugout and asked those who sat on it, “Can’t anybody here play this game?”

I have lately read commentary of this platform and wondered, “Cain’t anybody here THINK?”

Well, actually, there are a few here who can. And very, very well at that. dalemeyer, for example, writes of “…avoiding risks that one can control.” [What a concept!]

I recently wrote of the son of a former colleague who was killed in a gun accident. And, in response, Brookfield D asked me the (entirely odd) question, “Do you blame the gun or the other [kid’s] parents?”

BD’s query rather underscores our need to think clearly about public-policy issues. By “think clearly,” I do not mean “arrive at ‘sound’ or ‘valid’ or ‘true’ conclusions.” There’s something that must be done well prior to engaging in searches for apt conclusions. One must, well, “watch his language”. Use appropriate semantics.

One must be careful to frame important public-policy questions in an intelligible, meaningful way. Which leads me back to BD’s question.

When we talk about Blame – “culpability” might be a better word – we must be careful not to ask a wrong-headed question like, “When a lion kills an antelope on the Serengeti, is the lion to blame?”

Rather than respond in a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ fashion, we might better respond, “Huh?”

Clearly, only PEOPLE are EVER held culpable. For wrongdoing. Which answers BD’s question, albeit in a most trivial way.

But blame (or ‘culpability’) aside: Are we to conclude from what I have written that we humans need not concern ourselves with imposing reasonable regulations on the manufacture, distribution, sale and owership of weaponry?

[John Stewart came up with a wonderful phrase. Assignments of blame aside: Do we not want to prohibit the public sale of “surface-to-air anything”? I’ll trust dalemeyer to come up with the correct answer to that query!]

Culpability or responsibility? Both, perhaps?Again, bee, I'm sorry for your friends loss. I think I already know the answer to the question that I put to you.Mine are not only locked up, but they're also trigger locked. And the ammo is elsewhere. Taxi will have a field-day with that, because he'll want to know what good those safeguards will do when I become the victim of a home invasion. Well, have at it Taxi. All I can tell you is this: I'm a gun owner (IMHO: A reponsible one), a father, and a host of other peoples children in my home. We have a good supply of marshmallows on hand.

Thank you, BD, for expressing your condolences. For a SECOND time, no less. Basic humanity is sometimes sorely lacking on this platform. And sometimes: Beea Culpa!

As for semantics, I think that it’s no trivial matter. Honestly, it’s vitally important, because, before we can even begin to agree or disagree with each other, we must understand what others – and even we ourselves – assert.

And, actually, that matter is even more important, and trickier, than I now suggest.

I suppose that each of us – at least in some small measure – is a sophist. In trying to “win arguments”, we sometimes rather purposefully misuse language. And, if our targeted audience is relatively innocent – as most members on this platform certainly are! – that Machiavellian tactic can be quite successful. Well, for what that’s worth: for a, um, handful of thumbs, up or down, in a nation of some 320,000,000.

In one of today’s letters, for example, a sophist has it that our President is “pro-abortion”. And he wonders aloud as to how President Obama can be “pro-life” in trying to save the life of once child by enacting more gun-control measures, yet “pro-death” (or some such thing) by allowing for the “murders” of “pre-born babies” (or some such thing). The letter-writer wonders: “Does our President suffer from a dissociative personality disorder (or some such thing)?”

Wouldn’t you agree, BD, that this kind of foolishness – this “silly-semantics game” – doesn’t do much to further progress in discussions regarding the important social issue of abortion? [Actually, the semantic hyperbole and distortion seen here is (in my judgment) quite counter-productive in its overuse by those who dissent from the ROE decision. Indeed, the “pro-life” folks – it must be said – are quite able of making strong arguments plainly and simply in defense of their views! Without jejune, ineffective, semantic trickery.]

I'll jump in here on one point. Some people are pro abortion RIGHTS, one of which is so barbaric I still can't believe we allow it--partial birth abortion-- where the baby is almost completely delivered and then the skull is punctured and the brain sucked out, and those are the right semantics... but I digest.

Others are pro abortion, most of Planned Parenthood comes to mind, where they reportedly almost always counsel abortion over adoption.

Anyway, bee has a point that the letter writer doesn't know which Obama is and it's an important distinction.

Gary, people aren't doing partial birth abortions for the sake of birth control. Hopefully you never find yourself in a scenario when you need to employ such a procedure; you should really have sympathy for the people who have no other choice. This shouldn't be a political hockey puck. There are real people with real problems; it's not up to you or the government to play doctor or to second guess difficult situations.

bee, all semantics aside, you knew exactly what I meant all along. You are quite good at parsing words. Long ago, I accused your writing tone of being narcissistic.Anyways, we've got "spelling police" and "grammar Police" all over these blogs. If you've understood a persons point, from their short sentence, why do you need to beat it to death with full-screen responses?I'm just sayin......

Regarding the Stewart comment about "surface to air anything", while I'm sure Stewart said it in jest, there are many gun grabbers on these boards that have said the very same thing, and they were serious about it.

There are some that have asked if you have a right to a grenade launcher, a Patriot missile, an anti-tank rocket, RPG, nukes, or any other large destructive weapon you might think of.

It's a rediculous notion. As rediculous as those that oppose gay marriage saying that it will ultimately lead to people wedding their dog, their horse, their favored lamb or any other animal you care to mention.

So if you want to discuss the 2nd amendment, that fine. Just leave the rediculous stuff for the gun grabber web sites, don't bring it here.

"There are some that have asked if you have a right to a grenade launcher, a Patriot missile, an anti-tank rocket, RPG, nukes, or any other large destructive weapon you might think of."

When all they have is emotion and lack logic to make a valid argument, they jump right to the ridiculous.

"As rediculous as those that oppose gay marriage saying that it will ultimately lead to people wedding their dog, their horse, their favored lamb or any other animal you care to mention."

The most ridiculous is the argument that if gay marriage is allowed, the human race will cease to exist because we won't produce any children. There are already 7 billion of us on this rock - allowed two men or two women to marry isn't going to end us as a species.

Gary Johnson 2016 - Today at 8:40 AM :"The most ridiculous is the argument that if gay marriage is allowed, the human race will cease to exist because we won't produce any children. There are already 7 billion of us on this rock - allowed two men or two women to marry isn't going to end us as a species."**********It's more foolish to think that people won't have sex if they're not allowed to marry. Gay sex as well as straight sex has been occurring since the beginning of time and will continue to the end of time regardless of any laws on the books.

Taxi, what "isn't" about sex?Your VHS/VCR is there because of sex. We're here because of sex. Sex/procreation is the driving instinct behind all forms of life.Unfortunately for the rest of reality, Democrat/Liberals figured it out too....

Taxidea taxus - Today at 11:27 AM;1"jack, is marriage about sex?I think that's where republicans are barking up the wrong tree."************Of course marriage isn't about sex. The fact that you would even pose such a question is an indication of your naivete. The point I was attempting to make is that considering sex can't be regulated by the government this shouldn't even be a consideration when denying anyone the right to marry. The point I was attempting to make, which obviously went over your head as usual, is the world won't end because people won't be able to reproduce and incest will not run amuck if gay marriage should open the door to other forms of marriage.

Taxidea taxus - Today at 1:31 PM;I'm not sure, jack, but I think we agree on this.

My point is that fundamentalists think gay sex is a sin, and they use that as a reason for gay marriage to not exist.

I'm saying that the sex part is only a component of marriage, not the entirety.***************Yeah Taxi we are close in agreement. Although I feel that you're wrong on most of the issues I do believe you have a good heart unlike some of your loon brethren.

""It's more foolish to think that people won't have sex if they're not allowed to marry. Gay sex as well as straight sex has been occurring since the beginning of time and will continue to the end of time regardless of any laws on the books.""

Its even more foolish to think that God won't take away His hand of protection over those societies that openly condone the sins of homosexuality and of sex without marriage.

"On the other hand, we have lobbyists such as Mark Graul, whom most of us have never heard of but someone who probably has more influence in Madison than any 100,000 bloc of honest voters."

At the state and federal levels of government, lobbyists are dancing around legislators with pocketfuls of cash looking to buy influence. That really is a paine for the rest of us.

"Just imagine if there was a law that stated that an elected official talking to one of these lobbyists could not vote on any issue connected with that lobbyist. And another law that would remove from office any politician accepting money or donations from a lobbyist."

If we could stop the lobbyists from mumbling in the ears of the state and federal legislators, maybe the bills that become law like ObamaCare would never have existed in the first place.

"As it is with folks such as Vos, Graul and their ilk contaminating the system, there is little hope to stop the downward spiral of government."

The letter writer only talks about Republicans but the same is true for Democrats. Huh? Go figure!

I can't tell you how I know this or I'd have to kill you, but Creamean is Paine.

This, of course, makes sense when he leaves off the elephants in the room of union lobbying, trial lawyer lobbying, environmental group lobbying, Solyndra lobbying, Menendez lobbying, bank lobbying of liberals, the list goes on, and only mentions republicans.

"I thought I made it obvious with "dancing", "paine", "mumbling" and "Huh? Go figure!". The question - will moniker21 return to defend his own letter?"*******Now that he's been exposed he will either burrow deeper into his hole and wait until he thinks it's safe to poke his head out again. Or, he'll begin crying and whining incessantly that people are picking on him.

"Now that he's been exposed he will either burrow deeper into his hole and wait until he thinks it's safe to poke his head out again. Or, he'll begin crying and whining incessantly that people are picking on him."

I think he has used his time away recently to develop a new strategy. He will burst back onto the scene with more bluster than he has ever had in an effort to drive away his critics. Of course it will fail and he'll get bounced again. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Gary Patrick - Today at 7:54 AM: "How did you know? He really toned it down in his letter and just being full of it in a letter is like the sun rising in the east."*************A while back after getting bounced for the umpteenth time ol' Eddie was incensed. Eddie being the narcissist that he is didn't believe he did anything wrong and felt his expulsion was grossly unjust. Add a little density to Eddie's narcissism and he made his identity known to the world by publishing his biography on the MJS webpage. Eddie threatened to cancel his subscription if he wasn't immediately reinstated and listed a ton of personal info thinking that the MJS would be impressed or intimidated and acquiesce to his demands. It never occurred to Eddie that when you post personal info on a public webpage the public might see it.

"A while back after getting bounced for the umpteenth time ol' Eddie was incensed."

Close - he threw a temper tantrum.

"Eddie threatened to cancel his subscription if he wasn't immediately reinstated and listed a ton of personal info thinking that the MJS would be impressed or intimidated and acquiesce to his demands."

It was funny that he thought having a subscription was enough to shield him after the comments he made that got him bounced. You have to be pretty dense to think getting the paper should guarantee you the right to be obnoxious and borderline obscene on this forum.

"It never occurred to Eddie that when you post personal info on a public webpage the public might see it."

The best part was when he denied he had done it but then couldn't figure out why other people knew about it. I tried to convince him I had psychic powers and that I had discerned his name by rubbing two sticks together. I don't know if he bought it - he was kicked off yet again before he said anything about my ruse.

Any day now, vaa57Paine will pop back up Whack-A-Mole style and I give him 2 days after that before vaa57Paine becomes deleted moniker 22.

Gary Johnson 2016:"I thought I made it obvious with "dancing", "paine", "mumbling" and "Huh? Go figure!". *************GJ, just FYI. You did a good job constructing your comment. I knew immediately to whom you were referring.

Gary Johnson 2016 - Today at 12:56 PM:"How long do you think before moniker 22 lands in the deleted pile?"*************It won't be too long but I do hope the little twit lasts for a little while. It's always fun watching him self-destruct.

"Um, GJ 2016 you seem to think there was something there to begin with, even mumbling. Please rethink that. Thank you for your cooperation."

OK, you got me there.

I do remember the days and dozens of his comments calling me a "fake libertarian" and then a libertarian but not a Wisconsin libertarian. Mumbler was confused when my moniker was "Lake Country Libertarian" - he thought I was in Lake County Illinois. Of course once I changed my moniker to Gary Johnson 2012 he was confused again - possibly because he didn't know what year it was. The 2016 in my moniker now must just confuse the dance right out of him.

vaa57 - Yesterday at 10:39 PM:"There is an old saying that goes: "Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discus people.""*************The heck with old sayings, let's get creative and try to come-up with a new saying. Rather than "small minds discus [sic] people" perhaps it would be more accurate saying small minds keep getting bounced but continue to slither back.

vaa57 - Today at 11:47 AM:"IHey Sparky, it's Pewaukee and you know the address. Just put on your krav maga t-shirt and it will probably keep all the bad guys away and save you from harm. :)****************Ah Eddie...Pewaukee is a big place and as I told you I forgot your address, so why don't you list it again? Better yet, why don't we just meet at a public place and I'll look for the guy that has a kick-me sign on his back with spittle dribbling down his chin.

Gary Johnson 2016 - Yesterday at 12:46 PM:"He's going for the big number 22. I say today after his one handed power gane."**************GJ: You owe yourself a round of putt-putt golf. Perhaps when you complete your game you could autograph your scorecard and give it to Eddie.

Gary Johnson 2016 - Feb 16 at 1:51 PM:"It usually happens fast and I miss it. One moment there is mumbling and next, there is nothing."**********Geez GJ you should be a prophet....it hasn't even been 48 hours.

BTW, you clowns could probably get a letter published...if you allowed someone else to come up with the idea and then write it for you. However, you probably could handle signing it...oh wait...that can't happen either since you don't even have the guts to provide your name. Easier to shoot off your mouths in anonymity. Right?

That's why these boards should be just like the letters...provide a legit name and location. That would stop all the vitriol from the big mouths and tough guys who hide behind their little keyboards...probably while clutching their six shooter and worrying about an intruder!

Now let's go to each of your inane posts: Patrick: Where do you see anything about libs or conservatives or either political party in the letter? You jump to conclusions like a wounded frog. "Ye protesteth too much" comes to mind. Did it hit a nerver for you?

LCL, you are so redundant you are boring. What you need to try to think about is why anyone would be so stupid to use a current politican in their moniker. It's like using "Larry Craig 2020" or "Mathew Barnes 2016" for a moniker. You do recall ole Mathew don't you? Seems some group elected him their vice chairman a while back. Check it out.

I'm redundant? I'm not the one who keeps coming back after getting kicked off. 22 times - that's redundant.

"What you need to try to think about is why anyone would be so stupid to use a current politican in their moniker."

Gary Johnson is a politician I have met and have backed for election. Sorry if it gets you into full mumble mode but that's the way that it is. You seemed to like to use his name when you pretended to be me as "gary johnson 2084".

"It's like using "Larry Craig 2020" or "Mathew Barnes 2016" for a moniker."

I didn't support either of them for any office so why would I use them as part of my moniker?

"You do recall ole Mathew don't you? Seems some group elected him their vice chairman a while back. Check it out."

That "some" group would be the San Bernardino County Libertarian Party. How is that somehow relevant to me or anything I have said? That's right - it doesn't. You just needed to mumble it.

vaa57 - Yesterday at 11:02 PM:"What you need to try to think about is why anyone would be so stupid to use a current politican in their moniker."*************Yeah, current politicians are stooopid in a moniker, much better to use dead philosophers.

And finally our resident hero battler, jack krav sheet maga...a true legend in his own mind. But afraid to take up an offer of stopping by for a chat. I wonder why. I guess it's easier to be a krav maga tough guy when typing!

vaa57 - Yesterday at 11:06 PM:"And finally our resident hero battler, jack krav sheet maga...a true legend in his own mind. But afraid to take up an offer of stopping by for a chat."**************I'd be happy to stop by for a chat. What time are visiting hours? BTW, I forgot your address,...would you list it again? [LMFAO]

Hey Gary, you wondered why the letter didn't mention "...union lobbying, trial lawyer lobbying, environmental group lobbying, Solyndra lobbying, Menendez lobbying, bank lobbying of liberals, the list goes on, and only mentions republicans." Now I know that while you are not a jack-krav-sheet-maga type or a really bad person...you also will never need to worry about what to bring for lunch to the annual MENSA picnic. Did you not even bother to read the "No Quarter" article or did you miss the part (and the headline) that it was about Assm. Speaker Robin Vos and his clever maneuvering to get $$$$ from lobbyists and his lame excuses for doing it. That was what the article was about and thusly was what the letter was about. Your welcome.

BTW Gary, you might be heading for trouble by using "Solyndra" in a post. It's one of LCL's fav words and possibly might be copyrighted. Kinda like those 7 words that George Carlin made famous...except that poor lil LCL only has 4 words he repeats!!

""oblivious" indeed"...As usual you dance, mumble, and try to nitpick or dream up words that were not said."

What did I "dream up" that you didn't say? Are you going to dance away from your "Larry Craig 2020" comment? Or how about the "only has 4 words he repeats" comment? Keep dancing - don't worry when the music stops.

"Or use "Oblivious 2016" instead of GJ 2016."

No, you and taxidea have that copyrighted for your Presidential campaign.

"You might need to get off your little keyboard and get out more and have some fun!"

"Kinda like those 7 words that George Carlin made famous...except that poor lil LCL only has 4 words he repeats!!"

the word "only" isn't there. It is frankly amazing how dense you are. Keep dancing and don't worry when the music stops.

"I compared your goofy moniker (using a politican) to using another politican "Larry Craig" in a moniker. Sorry if you can't get the connection."

Oh, I got the connection. The connection is that your head is so dense that you think my use of "Gary Johnson" in my moniker somehow has something to do with Larry Craig.

"YOU first used "oblivious and now seem confused by it."

How am I confused by it? It is the perfect descriptor of you.

"I have no "Presidential campaign" since I do not reside in your type of dream world where you actually brag about once meeting the great Gray Jonstone...or whtever his name is. (I shook hands with Wilt Chamberlain once so I guess that makes me a basketball expert)"

I didn't say meeting Gary Johnson made me an expert on anything. I said I met him and backed him for election. You really need to have that reading comprehension problem looked at.

"And lastly, you've had about 10,000 posts on this board alone so your "fun" factor must be waaaaaay below "plenty." "

And I have had ONE profile here. How many profiles have you had here that got tossed in trash - 21, 22?

You asked why "union lobbying, trial lawyer lobbying, environmental group lobbying, Solyndra lobbying, Menendez lobbying, bank lobbying of liberals..." was not included in the letter.

Well, I guess it could also have included every political mis-deed since 2006, but it was about the "No Quarter" article...and nothing else. Did you not even read the "NO Quarter" column? Or did you miss the part in the article that named Speaker Vos and his lame excuses per begging for lobbying $$$$$ and the guy named Graul who is a Madison lobbyist? Actually, the No Quarter piece named Vos in the headline. Check it out. It may answer your rather inane question!

Your life really does revolve around this goofy board, doesn't it? Now you are even replying to posts that do not even concern you. Unless you are also Gary Patrick. My gosh, get a life instead of being a professional poster!

He HAS to. He has nothing else in his life. The WalMart greeter job is only 3 hours a week and he can only play so many hands of one-person poker. The clients at the Paine Institute of Dance have dropped way off and the funding fell through for the Mumbling wing at the institute.

Because it amuses me to pull the chain of clowns like you two!!?? Exhibit A: Look at how both of you troll back and then jump in on a post addressed to Gary Patrick. If that's not the sign of a pathetic life I don't what is.

I'm almost disappointed that I will be down south golfing for the next two weeks. It will be fun but not nearly as funny as two lost trolls! Take care.

A Packer - Yesterday at 9:49 PM:"Because it amuses me to pull the chain of clowns like you two!!??"**************Interesting that you end your statement with question marks. What part of your statement are you questioning? If this forum gets a little confusing, just ask for help.

"Consider these facts: USPS lost nearly $16 billion in its last fiscal year mostly because of the law passed by the 2006 Republican Congress that imposed rigorous pension obligations on it, but on no other government agency."

I won't call the $5.5 billion the USPS prepays to retiree benefits "most" of the $16 billion it lost last year. It is time to privatize the USPS like Germany did with its postal service in 1995. Remove the meddling of Congress and allow the USPS to charge what it really costs to take a letter anywhere in the United States.

This factually incorrect statement is repeated over and over. Unfortunately for all who say it, it is not true. The USPS has had a $15 billion line of credit from the Department of the Treasury that it has now exhausted.

The letter writer claims that the primary reason for the USPS loss is a Republican law inflicted a pension funding system upon it. As has been demonstrated, the current funding obligation doesn't come close to the total operating loss the USPS has created.

If requiring the USPS to fund obligations it has already incurred causes it the fail, then hasn't it already failed? After all, the USPS will have to pay these obligations. If it doesn't have the money now, it won't in the future.

Perhaps we should spend a little time praising Republicans for requiring this change of funding. It shows us the true costs of operating the USPS.

And arguing that the taxpayers have not funded their loss misses a larger point - As a government agency, taxpayers WILL be funding these losses. With continued declining revenues, the USPS is a sinking ship.

How about calling it what it is: The law that was passed forced the agency to cover it's future obligations up front. Of course, no Democratic controlled congress would ever begin to see any logic in that.

"The direct public subsidy for the Postal Service, which came from tax revenues, was phased out in 1983. USPS does receive indirect subsidies from tax revenues, however, which reimburse the Postal Service for the reduced rates it charges to nonprofit organizations and others."

The main reason the USPS is having financial problems is that it is one of very few (maybe the only) government agencies that is required to fund all of it's future obligations. Unlike the current politicans who do much of the yapping about the USPS.

I wonder what FedEx or UPS would charge to pick up a letter in Bangor, Maine and deliver it in Portland, Oregon if the USPS was disbanded and those private companies had the opportunity to bid on doing it?

"I wonder what FedEx or UPS would charge to pick up a letter in Bangor, Maine and deliver it in Portland, Oregon if the USPS was disbanded and those private companies had the opportunity to bid on doing it?"

I wonder what the USPS would charge to take a letter from Maine to Oregon if Congress let them charge what it actually cost. $2? $3 $5?

vaa57 - Yesterday at 11:23 PM:"I wonder what FedEx or UPS would charge to pick up a letter in Bangor, Maine and deliver it in Portland, Oregon if the USPS was disbanded and those private companies had the opportunity to bid on doing it?"***************As long as your wondering, wonder what rates private companies would charge if they didn't have to pay any taxes and could borrow money at discounted rates.

"LCL, I would take a stab in the dark that it's the fact that a letter can be mailed from anywhere in the USA to anywhere else and it costs $0.46 cents. Or did you miss that part?"

You can take a stab in the dark but since you don't know what you're talking about, it better be a knife with a rubber blade.

I live in reality, you live in fantasy land. You keep on believing it costs 46 cents to take a letter from anywhere in the country to another.

In business, there are two sides of the ledger - the price side (what you charge a customer for a service) and the cost side (what it costs you to provide the service). The price to the USPS customer is 46 cents but the cost is not 46 cents. If the cost was 46 cents, the USPS wouldn't be in the hole it is. Congress won't let the USPS charge what it really costs to take that letter from anywhere to anywhere.

"As long as your wondering, wonder what rates private companies would charge if they didn't have to pay any taxes and could borrow money at discounted rates." Do you honestly believe that FedEx or UPS rates would even be remotely close to what the USPS charges for delivering a letter nationwide?

"Do you honestly believe that FedEx or UPS rates would even be remotely close to what the USPS charges for delivering a letter nationwide?"

FedEx and UPS would charge close to what it actually costs to provide the service, not some artificially low price set by Congress. But then again, FedEx and .UPS would be out of business if Congress controlled them.

vaa57 - Today at 12:08 PM:"As long as your wondering, wonder what rates private companies would charge if they didn't have to pay any taxes and could borrow money at discounted rates." Do you honestly believe that FedEx or UPS rates would even be remotely close to what the USPS charges for delivering a letter nationwide?"*************************Eddie, is this conversation moving too fast for you?? Did anyone ever claim that FedEX or UPS could deliver a letter comparable to the rates of the USPS? You were the one doing the wondering. I merely asked as long as you were going to wonder about apples and oranges you may want to compare apples to apples.

LCL, great "catch" on the well know fact that only the USPS can carry first class mail. It has been hidden in plain view for so long that you probably had to do extensive research to figure that out. Next you will discover that it's also illegal to stuff personal or business items in mailboxes and will be soon be giving a dissertation on that. I can hardly wait!

"LCL, great "catch" on the well know fact that only the USPS can carry first class mail."

If it is so well known, why has no one else mentioned it? Keep on dancing.

"It has been hidden in plain view for so long that you probably had to do extensive research to figure that out. Next you will discover that it's also illegal to stuff personal or business items in mailboxes and will be soon be giving a dissertation on that. I can hardly wait!"

The mumbling machine keeps on rolling. Good for you - at least you're consistent.

"This condemnation of guns as the factor for the mindless killings by disturbed gunmen is just too convenient. It is time to deal with the real problem."

It is much easier to use emotion and not use logic when it comes to the gun debate.

Some here will talk about their grandchildren and how they won't want their kids in homes with guns. But they never mention knives in the kitchen, saws in the garage, chemicals in the basement - it is always somehow just guns and the assumption that the owners somehow would not be responsible with their firearms.

"This condemnation of guns as the factor for the mindless killings by disturbed gunmen is just too convenient. It is time to deal with the real problem."

Yes, because background checks are onerous and unreasonable.

The real problem, especially in high crime areas, is that there aren't enough cops. There should be a suffocation of gang activity ANYWHERE. In some neighborhoods in Chicago and Milwaukee, there should be cops on every corner.

Sorry, but if your neighborhood is out of control, it's up to the taxpayer to bring it back into control.

I didn't say that but you keep on making up things that I didn't say and argue against them if it makes you feel better.

"The real problem, especially in high crime areas, is that there aren't enough cops. There should be a suffocation of gang activity ANYWHERE. In some neighborhoods in Chicago and Milwaukee, there should be cops on every corner."

Instead of treating the symptoms, the root of the problem should be dealt with. One thing to do would be to end the failed "war on drugs".

"Sorry, but if your neighborhood is out of control, it's up to the taxpayer to bring it back into control."

So as a taxpayer, you want me to go and do some community policing? Can I carry a gun or would that just be wrong?

"Sorry, but if your neighborhood is out of control, it's up to the taxpayer to bring it back into control."I see "Tax" , so now it's our job to control crime , when all you preach is that we should be restricted with our firearms , and to let the police do their job. Interesting how you'll flip/flop to make a point. As for background checks , we already have those! Bill Meyers letter is spot on , and everyone should read it more than once.

I think a major part of the issue in high crime areas is not the lack of police but people with an attitude that the police are bad. The do not snitch attitude is prevalent and damaging to those areas but most lack the spine to change it. If people reported crime and the information that cops could use to arrest and DAs could use to prosecute it would have a major impact.

taxi, I'm not their parents or any other significant influence in the lives. Therefore I can't teach them, they know what the see and live. As for areas becoming third world war zones, from what I read some of them are worse then that already. Can I repeat what I said? Tell the cops who the bad guys are. Give the good guys a chance to help clean up your neighborhood. It takes good people to beat bad people and the cops can only do so much.

Taxidea taxus - Today at 1:22 PM:"WE are one step closer to living in a banana republic"****************On Jan 20 we took another step closer to becoming a banana republic. But take heart, on Jan 20, 2017 we'll be taking a step back no matter whom is taking the oath of office.

And that's what I am saying. More cops are not going to make a difference if people don't come to them with information. Like when assaulted telling them who assaulted them. Not remembering and letting the criminal go unpunished won't help. You could have cops swarming areas and the criminals will just go where there are less cops. Like squeezing a water ballon they will go where there is less pressure. Good people can and should participate in their own protection and that of others in their community.

"If we engage in even a casual survey of the weighty issues confronting the country, we see an essential immovable dichotomy between liberal and conservative approaches, evaluations and potential solutions to these issues."

This is not an immovable dichotomy. Liberals and conservatives can make concessions and get almost everything they want, but we're choosing to waste our time with partisan gamesmanship. The rank-and-file voters, on the left and right, couldn't give a damn about Ted Nugent, Eric Cantor, Benghazi, Solyndra, Obama, the nuances of the 2nd amendment, or secret Marxists running the country.

We want results; we want action. Why hasn't congress fixed the underwater loans yet? With a stroke of the pen, congress could allow thousands of people simply to REFINANCE. It's been 5 years since the housing market collapse, but our congress is too busy kowtowing to special interests and big donors.

The Republicans in congress, especially the House, need to start producing SOMETHING, or the voters in 2014 are going to have a hard time keeping the do-nothings in place.

"The rank-and-file voters, on the left and right, couldn't give a damn about Ted Nugent, Eric Cantor, Benghazi, Solyndra, Obama, the nuances of the 2nd amendment, or secret Marxists running the country."

No, I don't worry about Solyndra - I worry that Obama and Biden haven't learned their lesson and there will be more companies with failed business models getting millions or billions of taxpayer dollars and then going bankrupt.

"I'm saying that whining about Solyndra does nothing to contribute to the country's every day concerns."

Yes, throwing away taxpayer money when there is a $16 trillion debt is not a concern to this country. Got it.

American taxpayers.************More money is going out versus money coming in, therefore the need to print & borrow more money....therein lies the problem. It should be noted that Obama in his recent SOTU speech stated he intended to spend even more money. The left likes to relabel unpleasant things with nicer sounding names, e.g., replacing "spending" with "investing". I believe someone once said that "you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig."

"It should be noted that Obama in his recent SOTU speech stated he intended to spend even more money."

When all you have is a hammer in your toolbox, everything starts to look like a nail.

Keynesians only have one solution to any problem - spend more money. They don't understand the effect it has on the economy or the long term ramifications. They just get out the hammer and start pounding things no matter if they are a nail or not.

Gary Johnson 2016 - Today at 12:02 PM; "When all you have is a hammer in your toolbox, everything starts to look like a nail."*************When all you have in the WH is an empty suit....you are a nail [waiting for the hammer to fall].

Taxidea taxus - Today at 1:21 PM;"Yeah, bo, your critique would be spot on if our country had a household budget. It doesn't."*******************************Knock, knock, Taxi....anyone home? Our country doesn't have ANY budget! Why not!? The Senate has voted UNANIMOUSLY to reject every budget proposal Obama has submitted. Even the Dems recognize that Barry is an empty suit.

Sundae says:"Analysis of the voter demographics in the 2012 Presidential election also shows GOP gains among younger voters. President Obama had fewer votes from the 18 to 29 age group from 2008 to 2012. Governor Romney gained votes in this demographic from the 2008 election.

Senator Johnson and his fellow Republicans need to stay true to their core conservative values. This is what America wants and what America needs."

Yes, stay true to your bats##t crazy ideas, please. I also want to encourage RoJo to keep listening to AM radio for his instructions, especially for congressional hearings.

Do you mean congressional hearings where he asks the SOS why the administration and her department lied to the American people about the reasons for an attack and she completely avoided giving any answer to that question? The congessional hearing during which the SOS went off on a rant and responded "What's the difference"?

Yeah, that's the one. The one where ol' Ron didn't bother to read the report and looked like a damn fool during question. I'm glad he uses his position on the intelligence committee to inform himself well.

Once again, in reading some of this day’s disappointing responses, I must wonder how many others “process information” and respond. More and more – in the fashion of rightist Bill O’Reilly and leftist Chris Mathews – “respondents” (if that’s the right word) do not even TRY to understand what others assert, and many of those here do not have sufficient respect for their audience even to try to express themselves clearly.

One sometimes reads: “Well, you know what I meant!” And, in such cases, I am usually given to opine, “Actually, in truth, you yourself don’t have a very good idea of what you’re trying to express.”

At the risk of stepping on some toes – Call it “Speaking truth to superficiality”! – I’ll offer a candid observation:

We oft understand middle-aged and old people express a concern for students. Particularly for college students. Particularly about how they are brainwashed by their lib professors. And just after expressing that concern, they return to their living room La-Z-Boys to watch FOX “News” or to listen to Michael – Call me “Dr. Savage” – Weiner.

Let me try to set the record straight.

College students – particularly in the liberal arts – tend to be brilliant. Especially so, as compared to those who are “looking out for them”. College students and their mentors tend to have this in common: they listen to each other, they do not interrupt, they respond to each other, they weigh their words carefully, and they welcome actual debate. And the net effect is that they learn from each other.

They do not cotton much to political labels: “liberal”, “conservative”, "libertarian”, “independent”, etc. They, like all intelligent people, traffic in ISSUES, not labels. They offer well-reasoned arguments. Tutored positions.

""College students and their mentors tend to have this in common: they listen to each other, they do not interrupt, they respond to each other, they weigh their words carefully, and they welcome actual debate.

Do you mean the college students that shout down and try to disrupt Conservative speakers when they come on campus to express their point of view? Are those the open-minded, non-interrupting students that you're referencing?

""They do not cotton much to political labels: “liberal”, “conservative”, "libertarian”, “independent”, etc. They, like all intelligent people, traffic in ISSUES, not labels""

Oh, OK... Liberals are notorious for name-calling and demonizing those that don't agree lock-step with their misguided agenda, so apparently all those intelligent Liberal college students must learn how to name-call and demonize their opponents AFTER they get out of college. That makes sense.

Re the brilliant liberal arts students, they end up with no marketable skills living in their parents' basements. And, as they find inspiration in the words of Ayn Rand, do they realize how much she abhorred goverment controls of all types?

TaxiMan – What you have written about Ayn Rand is quite correct. But it is of no moment.

She has been dead for 30 years, but the position that she champions is robust. And THAT is what is extremely important.

Her politico-economic stance is stark and (in my opinion) repugnant. But it is most significant that it be available to those of us who would like to read her works and to offer assent or counterpoint. And, in any event, to learn from what she has written.

Intellectual positions and arguments can be important. But those who offer them – apart from matters of historical context and referential convenience – matter little. We all “come and go,” right?

BTW, Taxi. PLEASE reassure me that you are NOT going to try to convince the rightists on this platform that an educational grounding in the liberal arts is important!

PLEASE? Even if you don’t mean it! Okay?

Please allow me to bask, peacefully, in the reminiscence of our long-lost friend: the rightist and right-thinking “lets”. As you and I merely begin to try to emulate his brilliance, erudition, and charitable humility.

"TaxiMan – What you have written about Ayn Rand is quite correct. But it is of no moment.

She has been dead for 30 years, but the position that she champions is robust. And THAT is what is extremely important."

John Maynard Keynes has been dead 67 years and the position he championed is still followed by the lovers of big government. That is extremely important as they have led us to a $17 trillion federal government debt.

"But it is most significant that it be available to those of us who would like to read her works and to offer assent or counterpoint. And, in any event, to learn from what she has written."

I have wondered ever since I've been a libertarian what is the attraction of Rand's works. I have thought of reading Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead but, like your comments, they are long and probably tiresome.

"BTW, Taxi. PLEASE reassure me that you are NOT going to try to convince the rightists on this platform that an educational grounding in the liberal arts is important!"

The vote has been taken and the yawns have it. da bloviatus regurgitates the same line of commentary again.

I do like the part about the college students actually debating issues. da bloviatus could learn from them - alas, he will stick with calling people "sillies", a "clown" or "anti-intellectual" instead of addressing them directly.

So mister Voss our somewhat less than honorable assemblymen has found a new way tolegitimise bribery. Now it's legal to solicit a bribe er (campaign contribution yeahright !!) The gangsters of the Capone did the same thing leaning on the businessowners of their day. This method was not as sofisticated as the modern day politicalMafia. Voice of the people? you gotta be kidding.